In the autumn term of the MA Drawing, I started work for another installation for the Museum of Human Violence. From the beginning of working on The Museum, I recognised the importance of including a Gallery on the economic system: on neoliberalism and the violence inherent in it. But my reading over summer has taught me that capitalism in the 21st century has extended to include at least three new forms: platform capitalism, cognitive capitalism and biocapitalism (all three overlapping, but the last two not really separable). Biocapitalism is closely connected to some of my current concerns about how ‘other’ life is treated by humans, and I decided for the rest of unit three to focus on first, understanding how money is made from life, second how this creates even more inequality and injustice, and third planning work for this Gallery in the museum. I refined my research question further:
From my original research question at the very start of the MA:
What can I Learn about how artistic interventions can interrupt the iconography of oppression, objectification, invisibility (as subjects) and discourses of violence, in our society; specifically toward ‘other’ nature?
To:
How can I use the methods of installation and fictioning to interrupt the iconography of oppression, objectification, invisibility (as subjects) and discourses of violence to non-human and human animals, in biocapitalism?
I am pleased with the progressive narrowing of focus over the year:
- from ‘methods’ to ‘installation and fictioning’,
- from violence to ‘other nature’ to violence to nonhuman and human animals;
- from ‘society’ to ‘biocapitalism’.
(nb. What does biocapitalism mean for the Anthropos? ie. ‘Man’ loses per humanity (neutral gender term borrowed from Haraway who I believe in turn borrowed from Ursula Le Guin – I intend starting to use too) and place at the summit of creation as all life, particularly all bodies, become the main objects of profit (arguably while our labour was sold in ‘old’ capitalism, profit was not extracted from the material body – except of course from the body of the other animal and in slavery?) I haven’t found anything specifically about whether/how biocapitalism challenges the Anthropos (belief in the primacy of the human in the natural world) in my reading so far but I’m sure some of the posthumanist writers must be addressing this question. It relates to the conviction I have held, particularly in the last three years, that Humans as a species are losing their freedoms of movement, expression (I recognise many marginalised humans have never had these freedoms in the first place) – and my sense that if humans treat other animals and ‘other’ humans as ‘things’ then we too will come to be treated as ‘things’. As We Sow As We Reap. This is not the reason, of course, for ending our cruelty to other animals, which is based on a moral/ ethical position of not being cruel to others.
Reframing of the ‘economic system’ updates my understanding of the commodification of animals within contemporary capitalism as well as gives a clue to what might have happened during the giant-rupture.
I asked Chat GPT for input:
Me: you are a fiction writer. In 2033 there is a giant rupture causing death to many on the planet. It is associated with biotechnology. What might have happened?
ChatGPT: Title: BioGenesis Unleashed
In the year 2033, humanity found itself standing on the precipice of a new era, one driven by the remarkable advancements in biotechnology. For decades, scientists had been exploring the frontiers of genetic engineering, synthetic biology, and bioinformatics, striving to unlock the secrets of life itself. The culmination of these efforts was the development of a revolutionary technology known as “BioGenesis.”
BioGenesis promised the ability to manipulate living organisms at the most fundamental level, rewriting genetic codes with unprecedented precision. Diseases that had once plagued humanity were eradicated, and famine became a distant memory as crops were engineered to thrive in even the harshest environments. With each passing day, the possibilities seemed limitless, and the world celebrated these scientific achievements.
However, this utopian vision came crashing down when a catastrophic event known as the “Great Rupture” occurred. It was a day etched into the annals of history, a day when the very fabric of life on Earth was torn asunder.
The cause of the Great Rupture was traced back to a convergence of factors. First, the widespread adoption of BioGenesis had led to an overreliance on engineered organisms across various aspects of society. From energy production to medical treatments, these organisms had become an integral part of everyday life.
Second, the rapid pace of innovation had outstripped humanity’s understanding of the complex interactions within ecosystems. The intricate balance that had sustained life for millennia was disrupted as genetically modified organisms interacted with each other and their environments in unpredictable ways.
Finally, a series of unfortunate accidents and oversights in the development and containment of these modified organisms had occurred, leading to unintended consequences. BioGenesis, while offering unparalleled benefits, had also unlocked dormant genetic potentials that were not fully comprehended.
The rupture itself unfolded in a series of devastating events. Engineered crops, designed to be resilient against pests, became voracious predators, decimating natural plant populations and triggering a cascade of ecological imbalances. Synthetic microorganisms, initially created for waste management, evolved rapidly, consuming organic matter at an alarming rate and disrupting soil structures.
As the world grappled with the unfolding disaster, panic and chaos ensued. Governments attempted to implement containment measures, but the relentless progression of the ruptures defied all efforts. Millions of lives were lost as ecosystems collapsed, food chains disintegrated, and the delicate web of life crumbled.
In the aftermath, survivors rallied to find solutions. Scientists who had once pushed the boundaries of biotechnology were now forced to collaborate with ecologists, ethicists, and indigenous knowledge keepers to restore some semblance of balance. It was a humbling realization that the power of biotechnology needed to be tempered with a deep respect for the intricate tapestry of life.
The story of the Great Rupture is one of caution and resilience, a reminder that humanity’s pursuit of scientific progress must always be accompanied by a responsible understanding of the consequences. As the world slowly heals from the scars of the rupture, a new era of biotechnology dawns, marked by a commitment to harmony between innovation and the natural world.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
It doesn’t sound like ‘A day when the very fabric of life was torn asunder – more like decades…I can remove that bit…but it’s useful overall. It suggests to me that instead of seeing the Giant rupture as an ‘event’ in 2033 I should reframe it as an ongoing catastrophe that from the perspective of 2063 is thought to have started around 2033. It also makes me think about fictioning the years between 2023-33 (in the last installation I was really thinking of the world up to 2023). Note however – the focus in ChatGPT response above is on biotechnology because of the way I framed the input, whereas in fact what I am interested in is critiquing biocapitalism, and especially the discourse surrounding it.
My next step is to do more reading on biocapitalism and write the booklet to introduce the new gallery.
I like the move to a darker aesthetic and I may stick with these core colours for the installation. Reading about biocapitalism brought me to the work of Ashley Dawson, author of Extinction, but in this case a paper on biocapitalism: http://environmentsandsocieties.ucdavis.edu/files/2015/02/Dawson_Biocapitalism-Culture.pdf.
Dawson (2015) is an exciting writer who explores many of the issues I am concerned with, including animal exploitation. He is an author, activist, and Professor of Postcolonial Studies in the English Department at the CUNY Graduate Center, and at the College of Staten Island, City University of New York
In it he writes about the importance of the Arts for exploring issues in biocapitalism, and focuses on the work of Margaret Atkinson: Orynx and Crake – I read the first book in the trilogy when it was published, and remember feeling slightly disappointed (because at that point Atkinson was a favourite writer), but I will go back and reread, as well as reading the next two in the trilogy. He also mentions Pauline Piccinini as an example of a bio artist. This powerful work might be an example of what biotechnology is capable of, and raises concerns about the ethical issues.
33 1/2 × 59 × 47 1/4 in | 85.1 × 149.9 × 120 cm
I sought Chat GPT’s input a second time, changing only one word – biotechnology to biocaptialism. I did not expect such a change in response:
Title: Crisis of the BioDominion
In the year 2033, the world stands on the precipice of an unprecedented catastrophe known as the “BioDominion Crisis.” This catastrophic event is not just a natural disaster; it’s the culmination of decades of unchecked biocapitalism and the relentless pursuit of profit at the expense of the planet and its inhabitants.
Part 1: The Rise of Biocapitalism
At the turn of the 21st century, advances in biotechnology, genetic engineering, and pharmaceuticals gave rise to a new era of biocapitalism. Corporations wielding immense power over genetics and life itself emerged as global influencers. These entities sought to monopolize the world’s resources by patenting genetic sequences, commodifying ecosystems, and profiting from the creation of designer organisms.
Part 2: The BioDominion Rupture
As biocapitalism flourished, so did the inequality it perpetuated. The gap between the rich and the marginalized grew wider, as only the affluent could afford advanced medical treatments, genetically enhanced crops, and clean air and water. Desperation among the disenfranchised reached a breaking point.
In 2033, a coalition of these marginalized communities and environmental activists united under the banner of the “BioDominion Movement.” Fueled by the injustices of biocapitalism, they sought to expose the unethical practices of the biotech conglomerates.
The catalyst for the crisis occurred when an underground group within the BioDominion Movement managed to infiltrate a biocorporation’s heavily guarded research facility. Their goal was to uncover evidence of dangerous genetic experiments being conducted on a massive scale. In the process, a catastrophic accident was triggered, leading to the release of a genetically modified organism designed for accelerated growth.
This organism, initially intended to boost crop yields, proved uncontrollable and began to consume organic matter at an alarming rate. It quickly spread across ecosystems, devouring forests, agricultural fields, and even cities. Governments and corporations were ill-prepared to counter this rapidly evolving threat.
Part 3: The Catastrophic Aftermath
As the mutated organism spread, panic and chaos gripped the planet. Attempts to quarantine affected regions proved futile, as the organism adapted to various environments and climates. Millions lost their lives as entire communities were consumed by the relentless growth. The rupture disrupted ecosystems, causing catastrophic ecological imbalances, and compromising the planet’s delicate equilibrium.
Amidst the chaos, the connection between the BioDominion Movement’s actions and the disaster became clear. Though their intentions were noble, their actions had unintentionally triggered a catastrophe of unprecedented proportions. The movement found itself grappling with guilt and facing accusations of eco-terrorism.
Part 4: The Reckoning and Reflection
As survivors struggled to rebuild their shattered world, a reckoning began. The remnants of the BioDominion Movement, along with what remained of the biocapitalist corporations, joined forces to find a solution. A new era of cooperation emerged as the surviving leaders recognized the folly of unchecked biocapitalism and the importance of responsible stewardship of the planet’s resources.
In the wake of the crisis, humanity faced a collective moment of reflection. The BioDominion Rupture had laid bare the consequences of unfettered greed and disregard for the interconnectedness of life. Governments, corporations, and individuals alike were forced to confront the impacts of their choices and to reimagine a more equitable and sustainable future.
The legacy of the BioDominion Crisis served as a reminder that the pursuit of knowledge and progress must always be tempered by ethical considerations and a deep respect for the delicate balance of the natural world. It became a cautionary tale, inspiring a new generation to prioritize the well-being of the planet over short-term gains, ultimately leading to a more harmonious coexistence between humanity and the biosphere.
Chat GTP seems hot on happy-ever-after solutions. Is emerging AI part of the ‘Happy Industry’?
On reflection the way Chat GPT has divided this into the 4 clearly defined developments could help me think about how to organise the gallery. Although I really don’t buy this joining together in reconciliation!
Work in progress on the new booklet which, again, will be a ‘take-away’ (nb needs a lot of work especially reducing amount of text):
Questions at this point:
- How will empathy be engaged?
- What kind of shared experience is this based on? (we were all born inside a human!)
- How am I viewing my visitor in this installation ? human/cyborg/AI/alien?
- How Can I engage visitors more directly beyond taking away the booklet. i.e. DO something (remember whispering into the speaker that was then made into bird song at the Hayward exhibition . Brilliant). Could visitor use chat GPT? Ask questions. print off and post?
- The question of who curated this installation becomes more urgent and pressing since I am critiquing biotechnologies and transhumanism is critiqued as part of this. It seems unlikely that cyborg curators would critique themselves. Find a way around this urgently ( its a fun problem)
- Given the A5 booklet is so important to the installation and takes so long to make, could it be a more central part of the next installation, as well as a take-away? For example, I could make it into a giant concertina book that people walk in and out of (though that would probably be very costly). Or maybe a wall panel?
- The new focus on biocapitalism raises additional problems relating to Time. Unlike schooling, which looks back at a long history but is unlikely to change significantly in the next 10 years, biocapitalism is in its infancy. Given I imagine the Giant Rupture taking place in 2033, the field of biotechnology is likely to change rapidly between now and then. This means I also need to fiction the next ten years (and, in the museum of 2064, presenting as if these fictions are fact). This nudges my work closer to science fiction. Rather than simplifying the concept of the museum space (the installation is a spot within a Gallery within many Galleries within a museum), this new Gallery adds further complexity: it covers a time in history that is still in our future! ie. this museum looks forward as well as backwards and our ‘history’ is in the future. I like complexity. I think so long as I can keep it logical, and it makes sense to the visitor, it adds layers of interest and engagement. As well as a ‘map’ of the space in the Gallery, do I also need a map of Time?
- I’m wondering about the next installation being focused on ‘Clinical labouring’; an insersectional issue raising injustice to other animals (I must foreground this), marginalised women, as well as many ethical issues. For example, I could make the artificial womb in the diagram in booklet (don’t forget issue of who makes work for installation).
The felting technique, used by Meng Xu in her work for the MA Drawing, below (in process) would be appropriate (I have made 2D felt works in the past). I feel a strong emotional response to Meng’s work (she too is working on issues around violence). Using wool to make a sheep is coherent, on the other hand I’m committed to not using animal products. This is a dilemma. I remembered that my Samoyed dog shed wool twice a year and I collected it to spin and knit, but never got round to doing, so eventually threw the wool out. I have connected someone who owns a Samoyed dog (the shedding process is natural and does not involve any shearing – and it is wool not hair!).
Fiction: 31 August 2023
I have been thinking about how to use fiction in my work more overtly, as well as using fictioning, which I see as different (fictioning = ‘an open-ended, experimental art practice that involves performing, diagramming or assembling to create or anticipate new modes of existence’ Burrows and O’Sullivan: 2019.) In The Museum of Human Violence this different future is a peaceful world, following the giant rupture. Fiction = a literary device for story-telling based on development of an imagined character as they journey through conflict/dilemma. Both involve creating an alternative reality). Today I went to a fiction-writing workshop, which focused on writing ‘climate change fiction’. The workshop leader talked about climate fiction being Ustopia (a term used by Margaret Attwood that combines utopia with dystopia in a hopeful future – the future I am imagining is definitely hopeful). I used the workshop to focus on biotechnologies, which are, anyway, linked to climate concerns (eg a supercomputer takes the same energy to run as the city of Tupelo (https://cacm.acm.org/news/192296-supercomputings-super-energy-needs-and-what-to-do-about-them/fulltext). Also biotechnologies are being promoted to address contemporary environmental problems (but could, I fear, heap far more damaging human-made disasters on the earth).
I have studied how to write fiction/poetry, including diplomas in fiction writing from Birkbeck and City Universities, and I’m wondering how to combine fiction writing with fine art. I understand some of the core elements of fiction writing to be character development, character conflict/dilemma, and POV. I’m wondering how I could use this in the Museum of Human Violence. For example, the curator of the museum might collect stories from elderly people who lived before the giant rupture who think back to their youth. Or the museum might display a ‘found’ graphic novel about a character in a biotechnical dilemma. As part of the workshop I wrote two short pieces based on the research I’m currently doing into biotechnologies that might spark further ideas:
I sit on the narrow bridge, feet dangling over the water, and pull a packet of cashew nuts out of my rucksack. The beck is so different from 30 years ago. It used to be shallow, and broad.
You stood in the fast moving water, that reached just above your ankles, catching minnows and eels. The eels were slippery like soft oozing mud that shifted and slipped through your hands; you let out a shuddering sigh of relief when you dropped them into the bucket, and hurried home to give them to Mother. So she could chop off their heads and fry them in onions and butter.
Now the beck is narrow and deep. The edges are lush with tall grass and weeds that flourish on the run-off from fertilisers. The water trickles slowly and minnow and eels seem to have disappeared. Yesterday I read that Endocrine Disrupting Compounds reach the waterways from reproductive and gender changing therapies, as well as plastics, fertilisers and pesticides, which mimic sex hormones. Some fish have become Transsex so they no longer reproduce. Has that happened here in the beck? Is that what’s happening to me?
Short story 2. I hadn’t thought of them being connected but they seem to be:
My third sleepless night in a row. I want a baby so much. I’ve always thought I would be a mother. I’d make a good job of it. I’d avoid all that control and manipulation my Mum practiced on me.
But how will my child feel knowing it’s the first cloned human to be grown on a metal plate in a laboratory? Will we bond? What if its a monster?
Perhaps the giant rupture was caused by a crisis of fertility? Or more likely a deliberate planned policy of infertility – see my writing on biotechnology and suggestions from … that the world population should be reduced to approx 2 billion for sustainability – brought about through use of biotechnologies.
11 th September 2023.
Another go with chatGPT. I realise (of course!) that the quality of the outcome is dependent on what in input. Below is about the fifth result – I asked it to have one last go with more focus on non human animals. I have tweaked it:
Me: You are a fiction writer. In 2035 a virus kills two-thirds of the world population. It’s caused by some kind of fault resulting from the desire to make billions from biotechnology and AI . What might this fault be? How might the remaining people live afterwards and particularly how might technology be used in service of life rather than making money.. What might the legacy of loss include? include veganism and put more emphasis on the impact on non human animals.
Title: “Eco-Resurgence: A Tale of Redemption and Renewal”
Even prior to 2035 the world population was declining due to infertility caused by EDCs in the environment, as well as devastating crop failures caused by the colonising impact of mono bio crops. However In 2035, non-human and human life faced its gravest crisis, a virus known as the “BioTech Plague” that wiped out two-thirds of the global human population. The BioTech Plague wasn’t limited to humans; it wreaked havoc on non-human animal populations as well. Many species, both wild and domesticated, faced extinction due to the virus’s unpredictable mutations. It served as a grim reminder of the interconnectedness of all life on Earth. Entire ecosystems were disrupted, and biodiversity was drastically reduced, creating a ripple effect of ecological imbalances.
This virus was a consequence of the reckless pursuit of profit through biotechnology and AI, and it left a profound impact on the world, leading to a global shift towards veganism for ethical and ecological reasons.
The fault lay in the unchecked experimentation with AI-driven gene editing, where corporations raced to create designer organisms, promising super crops and revolutionary medicines. These corporations bypassed rigorous safety protocols, lured by the prospect of billions in profits. In their haste, they unintentionally unleashed a virus that was designed to target genetic markers (for autoimmune diseases?), but it mutated rapidly, spreading uncontrollably.
In the aftermath of the plague, the surviving third of the population was left to rebuild a world scarred by loss. They realized that the pursuit of profit at the cost of ethics and safety was what led to their downfall. The survivors were determined to use technology in service of life rather than money, leading to a series of transformative changes:
- Renewable Technologies: Faced with resource scarcity due to depopulation, society embraced renewable energy and sustainable practices. AI-driven systems were repurposed to optimize resource allocation, reduce waste, and manage energy grids efficiently.
- AI for Healthcare: AI, once a source of disaster, was reconfigured for public health. Advanced AI algorithms helped in monitoring and managing diseases, enabling quicker response to outbreaks and ensuring equitable access to healthcare for all.
- Biotech Ethics: A global consensus emerged to regulate biotechnology. Stringent safety measures and ethical guidelines were enforced to prevent a recurrence of the BioTech Plague. Scientific research shifted its focus from profit to the betterment of humanity.
- Veganism and Sustainable Agriculture: The devastation caused by the BioTech Plague led to a reevaluation of food production. People turned to veganism and plant-based diets as a sustainable way to feed the population without endangering the environment. Vertical farms and AI-optimized agriculture ensured efficient and eco-friendly food production.
- Legacy of Loss: The memory of the plague and its consequences became a driving force for change. Memorials and educational programs were established to remind future generations of the dangers of unchecked technological ambition. The legacy of loss served as a stark reminder of the importance of ethics, cooperation, and the need to prioritize life over profits.
The Vegan Movement: Amid the devastation and loss, a growing movement emerged that championed veganism as a means to mitigate the harm caused by the BioTech Plague and prevent future catastrophes. Several key factors contributed to the rise of veganism:
- Ethical Considerations: The virus-induced loss of countless lives, both human and non-human, prompted a widespread ethical awakening. People realized the need to extend compassion and respect to all sentient beings, leading to a surge in veganism as a way to reduce animal suffering.
- Environmental Stewardship: The ecological devastation caused by the virus forced humanity to reevaluate its impact on the planet. Veganism was seen as an environmentally sustainable choice, as it required fewer resources, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and helped restore ecosystems damaged by the virus.
- Food Security: With disruptions in traditional agriculture and concerns about food safety post-plague, veganism offered a more resilient and sustainable food system. Plant-based diets required fewer resources, were less vulnerable to disease outbreaks, and ensured a more equitable distribution of food resources.
- Biodiversity Conservation: Conservation efforts intensified in response to the ecological crisis. Veganism was embraced as a means to protect and restore biodiversity by reducing the pressure on natural habitats and ecosystems caused by animal agriculture.
Legacy of Loss and Redemption: The legacy of the BioTech Plague extended beyond human suffering. It became a pivotal moment in history that fostered a renewed commitment to ethical, environmental, and ecological values. Veganism served as a symbol of this commitment, representing a conscious choice to minimize harm to all living beings and to heal the planet.
In the wake of immense loss, humanity and the surviving non-human animal populations found a shared purpose in restoring the balance of the natural world. Veganism became a cornerstone of this renewed ethos, providing hope for a future where humans and non-human animals coexisted harmoniously and where technology was harnessed to safeguard life rather than profit.
I think the scenarios above, both regarding veganism and AI/bio technologies works for The Museum of Human violence and I’m going to proceed on this understanding of what happened and what is now happening in 2064.
After doing this work, and quite a lot of brainstorying/thinking, I can now return to the urgent questions. While I don’t need to communicate all my decisions to visitors, I really DO need to decide – this will make a difference to what I make, why and how I show it.
- What kind of world is 2064? (think pretty much answered above).
- Who curated and why? (Has to be humans – I thought about cyborg and transhumans and aliens, but I really don’t think they would care enough. I also thought about trans species, which I am not totally ruling out. And I thought about AI, but also cannot see any reason why AI would care enough – particularly if now in charge of humans! I think a human and AI partnership. Maybe some of the humans are trans species.
- What are the main ideas for new work and how do they relate to one another? (unregulated bio and AI technologies used in pursuit of profit for a minority – harm/death caused to non human and all life)
- Who are the visitors? (they can decide – use ‘visitor questionnaire’ to help focus)
- What happened in the Giant rupture (pandemic following dip in fertility caused by EDCs and food shortages)
- Am I pro or anti biotechnologies? I am not anti biotechnologies but I am anti biocapitalism. How can I clarify this. (could have story of rupture and post rupture world in museum)
- How can the visitors become more aware of it being 2064 and think about who they are?(questionnaire – see above)
- Who makes the art works and are the objects also made by the same person or found? I have given this a lot of thought. My feeling is – this is 2064 and museums have changed! (they are not the colonising instiututions they once were). Many objects that might have been used in the Museums were lost in the chaos following the plague. Objects/artworks are now made – not found – using computer technologies and/or artisans. The question of WHO made the objects is not relevant in a less individualistic community. The more important question is ‘Does it make sense for everything that is there to be there? – is it coherent?
- WHERE ARE WE? i.e. what kind of space? The last 2 installations were specific e.g. a biology class in a school; the bargehouse in an earlier era. ( the corporation showroom where these technologies are explained and sold – could include their catalogue. In fact their online site could be shown in the museum. Just like I could have been in last installation as a teacher. I could be in this one as the salesgirl offering coffee and macaroons and explaining the technology. Video showing interviews with people with designer babies – worries before and after?).
References
Dawson, A. (2015). Biocapitalism and Culture. paper presented at the Environments and Societies colloquium on March 4. Available here: http://environmentsandsocieties.ucdavis.edu/files/2015/02/Dawson_Biocapitalism-Culture.pdf
Drawing As Critique 